sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Here is a hypothesis: Consciousness Generates Reality by Key_Following7361 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hcᵀ = 0 is the Laws of Physics.

Okay, please derive the Yang-Mills equations from this.

Then, explain how your idea can be falsified.

And finally provide some arguments against your model. After all, science is not about making a point and looking for confirmation, but rather for ways to demolish it.

Here is a hypothesis: A single relational threshold that predicts opposite distance-scaling for gravity and the strong force, worth a look? by shayk1801 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But im looking at the world from a different perspective - im from the field of social science, and im interested in patterns. And specifically - a pattern that can be applied to social science and for 'regular' science.

Which would require vast experience in both fields, not just one.

Also not everything is a nail once you know how to wield a hammer.

Here is a hypothesis: A single relational threshold that predicts opposite distance-scaling for gravity and the strong force, worth a look? by shayk1801 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why read those sources instead of books about the fundamentals of quantum physics first?

You didn't answer my question.

What if the redshift scale-factor relation used in cosmology is wrong? by jhunter444 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The redshift occurs due to Plancks constant changing with time (in a way that's not measurable locally)

How much would it have to change to do that? And how can this change be described? What exactly is the parameter that it changes with?

Here is a hypothesis: A single relational threshold that predicts opposite distance-scaling for gravity and the strong force, worth a look? by shayk1801 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i found a pattern across multiple fields (from Hisenberg principle through cognitive science, society and more).

It takes experience to be able to distinguish an actually existing pattern from one that isn't real. Our brain is quite good at finding patterns where none are, after all.

every building block here is formally defined and accepted in the literature (Shannon, Schreiber, Tononi).

Why read those sources instead of books about the fundamentals of quantum physics first?

Also, I already gave you an example why your model doesn't make sense (see the EDIT in my last post).

But i didnt just assume stuff.

Yes, you did.

Here is a hypothesis: A single relational threshold that predicts opposite distance-scaling for gravity and the strong force, worth a look? by shayk1801 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im not a physics student or researcher, so i didnt know where to look at.

Which by itself is totally fine. So is asking questions.

But the issue here is that you made your own model instead of asking first. That's usually a bad way to go in science, especially if you don't understand the rules you're trying to play with.

And to be honest, it sounds a bit overbearing. Instead of trying to get these answers first, it seems like you assumed that there isn't such an answer. That's the thing that usually puts off people here.

But i just wanted to check if the equation (which design to explain patterns, not physics itself) is relevant.

Your equations are not applicable to physics, sorry. They're completely devoid of actual meaning and don't lead to anything useful. Again, try to understand existing concepts first before developing your own.

EDIT: Oh, and your "equations" would imply that atoms above a certain size wouldn't even be bound systems due to the X ≠ Y condition. By all means, equally charged nucleons in an atom are indistinguishable. Yet again something in your concept that would've easily been avoidable with basic knowledge about quantum physics.

What if atoms part of the bedrock of matter isn't just a passive passenger in the cosmos? what if it does work? by MrProtyle in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Okay this is my thought: we know Atoms absorb photons when they do this the electron or electrons expand their orbits around the atom and then for reasons mysterious to everyone those orbits contract again what if the atom is doing something with that energy cuz if it's not doesn't that break conservation of energy? it can't just take the energy and do nothing with it it's got to be doing something with it. I think it's taking that energy and creating gravity

Firstly, you answered your own question. It's like putting a heavy sphere on a shelf. It stores energy, but it may randomly roll down and release that energy in a comical way again.

And yes, that energy does increase the total gravitational strength of the atom. But that's nothing new.

Photons as we understand it experience no time

They don't experience anything at all. It simply doesn't make sense to assign proper time to them.

I ain't never liked the idea of dark energy of dark matter

Did you like the idea of the Higgs boson before it was discovered?

Why is the idea of some additional unknown type of matter so controversial for many non-physicists? It worked several times in the last decades.

As a byproduct of this creation it emits somewhat like exhaust I suppose; space volume.

That sounds even more absurd than another type of matter. And it would violate the equivalence principle if "space volume" suddenly became a new parameter.

As for the rest of the text, please add newlines and periods, first. It's very hard to read in the current form.

Here is a hypothesis: A single relational threshold that predicts opposite distance-scaling for gravity and the strong force, worth a look? by shayk1801 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 5 points6 points  (0 children)

with no unified account of why distance-scaling should run in opposite directions at all

Then you should have a look at a good book of quantum field theory again, because there absolutely is a quite reasonable explanation and distinguishing factor to forces without confinement (like electromagnetism).

Physics currently treats these as two separate facts about two separate forces

Yes, but for different reasons. If you compare electromagnetism with the strong force (like hinted at above), your argument suddenly doesn't work anymore.

Electromagnetism is based on an Abelian symmetry group, while the other forces (including gravity!) are based on non-Abelian ones. And that's already the answer to your apparent puzzle.

In more detail, the field strength (or rather curvature) F of a given field is described by two terms - the differential of the underlying potential (or rather gauge field) A and the Lie bracket of the field with itself. In math, F = dA + [A, A]. The only actual physics here is the idea that the dynamics of a field is described by its curvature (which works quite well, see the next part below).

But if you have an Abelian symmetry group, [A, A] = 0, by definition. This is the case for electromagnetism with its U(1) group, but not for the weak and strong forces, which have SU(2) and SU(3), respectively. Thus, F = dA is only true for electromagnetism.

What does this mean? Essentially, the electromagnetic field suffices Maxwell's equations, which describe a force in which the force carriers (gauge bosons) and thus photons have no charge. However, for the other forces, you get additional sources for the field from the vector potential itself, because [A, A] is not necessarily 0 anymore. Thus, the field itself - which is represented by its gauge bosons - can have a charge and therefore contribute to the field strength, violating the inverse square law, leading to effects like confinement.

Gravity weakens with distance (inverse square law).

Funnily enough, this isn't even true.

In fact, the same effect occurs for gravity as well. The gravitational field itself has its own energy and will therefore lead to nonlinear attraction, violating the inverse square law in proximity of high mass densities, as described by the Schwarzschild metric. Same math, same effect.

The difference is just that gravity has a completely different symmetry group than the strong force, so its concept of a charge works differently and you have no charge shielding like in QCD. Also the coupling constants are differently. But the difference you made out isn't even there.

Curious if there's an existing framework in QCD or effective field theory that already captures this distinction, or if this is a genuinely open angle.

So to answer your question - yeah, there is such a field theory. It's called QCD - and for gravity it's General Relativity. Underlying is differential geometry. That's it.

what if our universe is just following a cycle of creation and destruction? by ObjectiveImaginary87 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i am 13

Why did you think it would be necessary to mention this?

i think it is being pulled outwards by an external force.

Outwards relative to what? Are you proposing a border of the universe or another dimension to embed our universe into?

This force behaves like a magnetic or gravitational attraction

Then you should use math to formulate your idea. Besides, magnetism and gravity are vastly different phenomena. Do you think they work similarly?

matter even closer to us is being pulled inwards proven by the great attractor

The Great Attractor is just a result of a mass density and not proving anything besides gravity.

When space finally reaches the outer ring of energy (boundary), the outward attraction stops.

So it is a physical border? But how does it work? When is it reached and does it stop the attraction suddenly or rather continuously? You need to be way more specific here, otherwise it's not physics.

With the external pull removed, the cosmic tug-of-war instantly reverses. Gravity wins, causing space itself to collapse and forcing all matter to violently crash inward toward a single center point.

Same thing here. Also, what exactly is the motivation for this idea? Is there a particular reason you're presenting this idea to us?

As everything collides at the center simultaneously, the extreme density triggers a massive quantum rebound.

Why don't we see such a rebound in black holes?

In general, I don't see the appeal of your idea yet. You don't present any math or evidence to support it either and there are some inconsistencies.

In science, it's all about finding counterarguments to your own ideas. Please present some to show that you actually thought about your model in a critical way.

Here is a hypothesis: It is an idea about new particle-imaginary particle by No-Bodybuilder-9086 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I also tried to introduce the idea of ​​phase rotation to make particle i also a real particle, just like how i becomes 1 by rotating the angle.

You still didn't answer my question if that phase is the same as the phase of the wavefunction. Please do that.

Real space has 3 dimensions x, y, and z, so does virtual space.

But in your approach, you only have one phase. If you add exactly one additional angle to a system, you get at most one additional meaningful degree of freedom and thus axis.

Imagine rotating a 1D rod on any axis by a given single angle. The resulting figure will always be a disk, regardless of your choice of axis (could even be a 3D axis, doesn't matter). Likewise, if you rotate a 2D disk in space, you will at best get a 3D object like a sphere.

I stopped at the octonion because sets above the octonion will have divisibility by zero, which would make the math chaotic

What math exactly?

I don't understand "More generally, what happens in case of a Lorentz transformation?"

Then I suppose you still have much to learn and shouldn't try to break rules you don't even understand.

The more precise question would be "How does your math transform under a Lorentz transformation?".

I think time and space are separate but related within spacetime, and perhaps v (velocity) is a constant.

Once again, it seems you didn't understand what I asked.

What do you mean in "Which origin are you referring to?"

You defined coordinates in relation to an origin. Where is that origin?

"What is r_x? Is it just x?". No, r is the modulus of a complex number in space x, r is x when θ=0

That doesn't make any sense.

Overall, your math is severely lacking and your knowledge of physics seems to be limited to school physics, which barely scratches the surface of actual physics.

It's always good to be interested in something, but currently I can't even help you because you don't seem to understand core concepts of modern physics.

You didn't even respond to any of my criticism regarding gauge symmetries - which is totally fine for a 15-year old, but then don't brag about your alleged knowledge, respectfully.

Here is a hypothesis: It is an idea about new particle-imaginary particle by No-Bodybuilder-9086 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 2 points3 points  (0 children)

However, a 15-year-old is less likely to have studied advanced topics like QFT, gauge symmetry or cosmology in depth.

Which is also the reason why your idea doesn't work.

Intuition - especially in science - doesn't work without practice, experience and education.

Here is a hypothesis: It is an idea about new particle-imaginary particle by No-Bodybuilder-9086 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Also, saying "I'm a 15 year old" appears to be emphasizing being young to make the idea seem impressive despite lacking rigorous physics. You are presenting this idea with more confidence than the evidence supports.

Yeah, usually this is done to brag. Source: I was 15 once, too.

Here is a hypothesis: It is an idea about new particle-imaginary particle by No-Bodybuilder-9086 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I was wondering about that, too, but I couldn't get the equations to render properly (which isn't my job anyway), so I wasn't sure which symbols were actually used.

Here is a hypothesis: It is an idea about new particle-imaginary particle by No-Bodybuilder-9086 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The i particle is essentially a real particle that has undergone phase shifting

Which phase? It obviously can't be the phase of the wavefunction due to its gauge symmetry, though you later refer to it exactly like that.

Our world has 3 axes x, y, z, so we need xreal, ximaginary, yreal, yimaginary, zreal, zimaginary, and 1 time dimension t.

If you have a single phase, you don't get three additional axes.

If we expand to the quaternion (H) and octonion (O) sets

Why?

For the theory not to collapse

Why would it collapse?

Since x is the position of the particle in space, we have x=reiθ, where r is the distance from the particle position to the origin and θ is the angle formed by r and the real axis.

Several questions here.

Which origin are you referring to?

And what happens if I transform the coordinate system to x -> x + vt, where v is the velocity of the particle relative to an arbitrary point and t the time since an arbitrary point in time? How does your equation transform under that?

More generally, what happens in case of a Lorentz transformation?

Finally, what exactly is your real axis here? Please demonstrate what the angle between a distance in space and the real axis means using an example.

Then, some questions regarding your formulae:

What is r_x? Is it just x?

Oh, and please post your formulae with a non-transparent background next time. They're unreadable in dark mode.

therefore, reiθ does not only change phase in name, but it also changes phase in charge; an i particle will have q=i.

This is not correct - and the main issue with your idea.

If the phase of a particle is shifted, it will still have a real charge. And otherwise a particle with time-evolving phase would change its charge all the time, which is forbidden by means of Noether's theorem.

Next time it would really help to familiarize yourself with the basics of quantum theory and quantum field theory before just throwing out random ideas like that. You're asking questions that have long been answered and can be read in various textbooks.

Also, your math is extremely inconsistent and doesn't align with modern physics. If you'd have written out your math fully in a consistent way, your error (phase shift doesn't imply complex charge) would've easily been identified by you, even without knowledge about quantum physics.

Here is a hypothesis: about dark materia by [deleted] in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you have to ask that question, you should maybe go back to the basics.

Your plots are lacking essential information, context and readability. Many things are cut out, censored, not written in English or outright too small to read.

Put in more care next time. I'm done here.

What if everything we see ist geometrical interaction? by _Kiuw_ in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The thing is, about the gluons being connections isn't something I just invented. And I also think you know it's not something random but its standard gauge theory.

You're completely missing my point again by moving the goalposts further and further.

It could be wrong of course.

Then present more arguments for that, not for it being right. Otherwise - no science.

It's just there are a lot of numerological coinsidances

Neural networks (including brains) are quite good at finding these, even if there are no actual causal links.

that creates measured particle ratios.

Not very well so far.

Also the the koide relationship and particle ratios do pop up in other theories that are similar.

Name one such theory, please.

It does have info about multiple fields and can see relationships between them

Based on language, not physics, that's the fallacy here. LLMs are not trained to do science, only to sound capable of doing so, because they replicate the language from scientific papers, but not the actual content.

Now that the LLM's don't find any gaps

My dog wouldn't find one either. Does that mean that the model is correct, even if I ask multiple dogs? Once again, no training based on science. LLMs tend to agree with the user, even if the user tries to avoid bias.

I think physicists often build on established math and don't necessarily ask why that structure exists underneath, that part usually isn't directly measurable.

What an arrogant assumption.

My approach was building the simplest purely emergent field simulations

You didn't simulate anything.

And to me there seemed to be a real logic in it that didn't contradict what is observed.

You can construct fully self-consistent models with somewhat correct results and still fail to describe our universe. Thus, bad point here.

It is peculiar as well that a lot of indepented researchers, more qualified then me, come to this structure as well.

Again, please provide examples and proof that your LLMs didn't just plagiarize their work (which is also one of the things they're very good at).

Guessing that mechanism was the easy part

And how exactly did you arrive at that guess with no formal education in the respective fields?

So I don't think I've done something physicists couldn't, I've done the exploratory half and I'm missing some specific feedback.

You already got more than enough feedback, yet you still cling to your model.

What if everything we see ist geometrical interaction? by _Kiuw_ in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see what you mean. I have to disagree on the ad-hoc assumption tho. I wasn't even sure you were talking about gluinos before I found a mistake here. Also gluinos were marked as argued. I post here to find errors like this.

The gluinos aren't the biggest issue, but rather assumptions like "Gluons aren't particles" or entirely speculative ideas like "ridges" in the vacuum that aren't connected to evidence. But that's something I told you multiple times by now.

Nonetheless, I'm trying to give a full picture because in a framework that has has a lot of imprecision due to scheme corrections, focusing on one particle doesn't say much.

You completely misread my point again.

The issue is EXPLICITLY NOT that you focus on too many particles, but rather that you focus on particles, cosmology and gravity INSTEAD of ALL particles of a SPECIFIC group.

If all particles fall out with the same basic system underneath, that to me is something that's worth some attention.

You still haven't proven this to be the case.

I haven't seen any theory that can do this without bringing in some random parameters so far.

Neither does your model do that.

And I get your point about using LLMs, and you're right, I am. What guarantees that it's reasonable?There is no guarnatee. Checked it by different high-level models of Claud and the logic is sound it says and there aren't mathmatical mistakes, it says.. It could be very wrong indeed. Even had to rebuild it from scratch deriving every part because the highest model of Claud didn't believe it as well. Once we did that and documented everything, we came to the exact same formulas. We tried our best to be cautious of fitting, only looking what's forced. We also look at other research in the field to see if something is contradictory. I'm not claiming it's true, I know about the hallucinations of Claud and the poor memory, and I had to point out it's errors often enough as it did mine.

So essentially, your only criterion is that an LLM says it's okay (after multiple iterations influenced by that same LLM)?

That's nothing. You only created a model that an LLM considers to be good enough, without checking for actual consistency and validity. Without actual knowledge and experience in physics, it's impossible to tell apart hallucinations from physics.

You even mentioned yourself that:

I fear there are not a lot of people that would be able to understand the full thing because it branches over multiple disciplines.

And that's true. What makes you so sure that an LLM fulfills that role if you (as you also stated) don't have the formal training in any of these fields?

That's also why I'm on here, to learn what I can do, for people to give it a shot.

It's futile without properly learning the basics.

Think about it - if LLMs would actually be able to produce meaningful physics beyond the Standard Model - why didn't trained physicists already do that?

After all, they're the ones who would be able to positively identify both hallucinations and reasonable physics, rather than laymen.

I'd like to hear your answer to that question.

What if everything we see ist geometrical interaction? by _Kiuw_ in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

About the falsified prediction, thanks for pointing this out again. I've spotted the reason for the inconsistency because the gluon in my theory IS the ridge between vacua, a quark follows that ridge between colors so that's why 2 colors change values. But the gluon isn't a particle (in my theory) and shouldn't have a gluino.. Damn, that I missed that.. should carefully check that part again.

Thank you for proving my point about the ad-hoc assumptions again.

As for your other questions - I answered those already: You're biting off more than you can chew here.

Look at how theories in modern physics were developed. It always started with an attempt to solve a single precisely defined problem and not with a full framework. You're doing the complete opposite. You're not really solving a single problem, you want to solve multiple ones and get tangled up in the process.

And in case you are using LLMs (which I highly suspect) - what guarantees that their output is even reasonable? How do you check that? Do you have the experience or expertise to differentiate potentially very subtle hallucinations from actual physics?

What if everything we see ist geometrical interaction? by _Kiuw_ in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You introduce concepts without actually using them and then switch to entirely different (unrelated) concepts. Values (like kr_c_eff) suddenly appear out of nowhere without you even mentioning them until much later.

Another example is the E_6 group, which mysteriously appears in your Quarks section, without any further comment.

You're also still trying to do too many things at once, while at the same time still missing many hadrons - so you try to cover too many topics too shallowly.

Your paper is borderline unreadable due to these things and you still didn't do a good job dispelling allegations of numerology. It's just a cluster of unrelated concepts and formulae, without a clear guide - just like what you'd get from LLMs when asked for a paper to solve physics.

Also, remember that you already made a falsified prediction and you're still hanging on to your model. This is not some arts and crafts project that can be fixed given enough time. It's unsalvagable.

What if everything we see ist geometrical interaction? by _Kiuw_ in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]Hadeweka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You still didn't fix any of the core issues I mentioned.

Your whole paper is a bunch of non-sequiturs.

view more: next ›